Weapons type at trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Corpral_Agarn said:
Agreed. I'm with you. I only do the concealed pistol myself.
Click to expand...
Concealed AR pistol? :)
It doesn't seem like the best decision one could make, but I was informed by an NRA licensed CHL instructor that it is legal to CC an AR pistol in Ohio. Seemed kinda dubious to me, coming from the same guy who said it's illegal to carry a back-up here.
 
When the prosecution said that he gave up the right to self defense when he armed himself with a legal firearm why wasn't the defense shouting and objecting about how false that is? Is the defense in cahoots with whoever ???? or is there some wisdom in their lack of an objection I cannot see?
 
Middletown said:
When the prosecution said that he gave up the right to self defense when he armed himself with a legal firearm why wasn't the defense shouting and objecting about how false that is? Is the defense in cahoots with whoever ???? or is there some wisdom in their lack of an objection I cannot see?
Click to expand...

I've seen this said a few times now... Coincidentally, I was actually on a trial jury a week or 2 ago. The judge did a very nice job explaining the process to us as we went. When it came time for closing arguments, the judge made a point of explaining to us that the Prosecutor and Defense council could say pretty much whatever they wanted during closing. The evidence portion of the trial was now closed, and they could say whatever they wanted to try to spin that evidence however it would be most useful for them. He said it was up to US (the jury) to decide whether or not what they said was true. I was left with the distinct impression that they were free outright lie, and it would be up to us to call them on it.

While I'm not a lawyer, and the judge in our case never explicitly said this (and even if he did it could vary by state), I don't think opposing council CAN object during closing arguments. Their only recourse is to address any concerns they may have in their own closing statement. At least here in NY though, the prosecution makes their closing arguments last so it wasn't really possible for KR's lawyers to respond to those particular false statements. I don't remember if there was any opportunity for the two sides to "respond" to each other's closing arguments or not.

Hopefully one or our resident lawyers will chime in and either confirm this, or correct me.
 
I think a person CAN organize their life in such a way as to make needing to defend oneself with a firearm less likely. However, less likely does not mean impossible...
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. There are obviously many reasons why trying to minimize the chances of being threatened with serious bodily injury or death in an attack makes sense. But as you say, it's always possible--there's no way to control things to the point that one could say accurately that it will NEVER happen.

Along the same lines, it's impossible to say for certain that it's possible to control things to insure that any self-defense situation will always be unambiguous. One could certainly train for success but be prepared for the possibility that things will not go exactly as planned.
I prepare for things that are LIKELY threats. I prepare for a robbery or carjacking, along with the outside chance of "gun and knife jihad".

I don't prepare for battalion level airborne assaults by the DPRK Light Infantry Brigades or polar bear attacks.

Likewise, I avoid troublesome people and situations. I don't lie in a pool of my own sweat, worrying about some Soros zombie prosecuting me for refusing to let somebody behead me.
Click to expand...
I hope you can see the irony (and humor) in stringing together such an obvious pack of non sequiturs in a post where you are, at the same time, incorrectly accusing someone else of a non sequitur.

I didn't say anything about defense against military attacks or suggest that you should allow yourself to be beheaded--or even attacked without defending yourself. In fact, I don't see how you got from what I said to what you posted.

All this started when you claimed that you could insure that you would NEVER be in an ambiguous self-defense situation by the way you live your life. All I'm saying is that if you really have that kind of control over circumstances--if you really can control things that effectively by how you live your life--then you're wasting your talents by just making the situation unambiguous. Why would you allow yourself to be attacked at all? You might be killed or injured in the attack. Just live your life in such a way as to insure that you aren't attacked in the first place. That's clearly a much better strategy. :D
 
Harriw said:
I've seen this said a few times now... Coincidentally, I was actually on a trial jury a week or 2 ago. The judge did a very nice job explaining the process to us as we went. When it came time for closing arguments, the judge made a point of explaining to us that the Prosecutor and Defense council could say pretty much whatever they wanted during closing. The evidence portion of the trial was now closed, and they could say whatever they wanted to try to spin that evidence however it would be most useful for them. He said it was up to US (the jury) to decide whether or not what they said was true. I was left with the distinct impression that they were free outright lie, and it would be up to us to call them on it.

While I'm not a lawyer, and the judge in our case never explicitly said this (and even if he did it could vary by state), I don't think opposing council CAN object during closing arguments. Their only recourse is to address any concerns they may have in their own closing statement. At least here in NY though, the prosecution makes their closing arguments last so it wasn't really possible for KR's lawyers to respond to those particular false statements. I don't remember if there was any opportunity for the two sides to "respond" to each other's closing arguments or not.

Hopefully one or our resident lawyers will chime in and either confirm this, or correct me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what the judge did not tell you is that you have the right to nullify as you see fit, which is one of the most powerful rights afforded to citizens to check abuse of power.
 
JohnKSa said:
All this started when you claimed that you could insure that you would NEVER be in an ambiguous self-defense situation by the way you live your life.
Click to expand...
And I stand by that. Do ambiguous things, get ambiguous results.

I can't guarantee that I won't be attacked. I CAN guarantee that I won't have done anything to cause a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that I was the aggressor. As I said, I don't want to interact with most NON-criminals. They don't interest me in ANY way. I'm certainly not going to associate with the kind of people LIKELY to cause me trouble.

Merrick Garland can have me arrested tomorrow for having been in the Capital on January 6th. That doesn't change the fact that I haven't been anywhere near D.C. for a good twenty years, and barring perjury and conspiracy, there's no way to demonstrate that I have.

If somebody launches an unprovoked attack on me, it's going to look EXACTLY like that, an UNPROVOKED ATTACK. There won't be any drunken brawls, pissing contests or anything of the sort. If you do the sort of things that call your behavior into question, that's your problem, not mine.
 
I CAN guarantee that I won't have done anything to cause a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that I was the aggressor.
Click to expand...
That alone is not sufficient to make sure that the case is unambiguous. If there's disparity of force--for example, you have a gun, the aggressor does not, that can introduce questions as to whether the use of deadly force was justified. That's why the CHL shooting was brought up. The attacker was the CLEAR aggressor--there was no question at all about who the aggressor was. Absolutely none. There was no question about whether the attack was serious--the CHL holder was permanently injured. But the fact that he was armed and the attacker was not still raised sufficient questions to attempt a prosecution.
If somebody launches an unprovoked attack on me, it's going to look EXACTLY like that, an UNPROVOKED ATTACK.
Click to expand...
The CHL shooting was an unprovoked attack--there was no question about it. The person who was in the car with the attacker even said it was. They still attempted to prosecute the CHL holder.
I'm certainly not going to associate with the kind of people LIKELY to cause me trouble.
Click to expand...
That is not sufficient. The CHL shooter was not "associating" with anyone, he was driving. His car was hit and he stated that he was going to report the incident to police and that was what instigated the attack.
If you do the sort of things that call your behavior into question, that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...
What you keep ignoring is that you don't have to do anything to call your behavior into question. You can be driving down the road, minding your own business, have someone else cause an accident and then attack you for wanting to report it to police.

AND even though you did nothing to provoke the attack, even though everyone knows you weren't the aggressor, even though you weren't associating with anyone questionable there can STILL be circumstances beyond your control that raise sufficient questions to make a prosecutor feel that attempting a prosecution is the right move.

We know it can happen because it does happen. And not just in anti-gun areas--the CHL shooting took place in TX in the mid 1990s--a place that was so pro-gun that it was said that the governor who vetoed the first TX CHL bill was defeated in the next election because of it.

You can pretend that you can ensure that you're never in an ambiguous self-defense situation, but the reality is that no one can control circumstances that effectively. Outside of movies and fantasy, people simply aren't able to exert that kind of control over circumstances.

If there really were anyone who had the superhuman ability to control circumstances to that degree, they would be foolish to limit themselves to only controlling the ambiguity in a self-defense situation--they should just go ahead and control the circumstances so they are never attacked in the first place.
 
JohnKSa said:
AND even though you did nothing to provoke the attack, even though everyone knows you weren't the aggressor, even though you weren't associating with anyone questionable there can STILL be circumstances beyond your control that raise sufficient questions to make a prosecutor feel that attempting a prosecution is the right move.
Click to expand...
A prosecutor can say you were on the grassy knoll in Dallas... even though you're currently twenty two years old. If he wants to claim you've got a TARDIS stashed away somewhere and you're running amuck in time and space, assassinating presidents, there's not much you can do apart from hiring a minimally competent criminal defense attorney who will roll his eyes and move for immediate dismissal... which in all likelihood will be granted.

I'm from Chicago. I know as well as anyone else that there are people who should NEVER be police or prosecutors. That's why I go out of my way to avoid doing things which would cause me to interact with them. If through no fault of my own I'm COMPELLED to interact with them, I'm not going to do or say anything which they can use against me, legitimately OR maliciously.

I can't control whether the cop on the street or the county prosecutor is a psychopath. I CAN control whether I do things which obfuscate that psychopathy. That's an inherent part of my lifestyle. Some people simply can't comprehend others' desire to live an uncomplicated life, and them going out of their way to do so.
 
A prosecutor can say you were on the grassy knoll in Dallas... even though you're currently twenty two years old. If he wants to claim you've got a TARDIS stashed away somewhere and you're running amuck in time and space, assassinating presidents, there's not much you can do apart from hiring a minimally competent criminal defense attorney who will roll his eyes and move for immediate dismissal... which in all likelihood will be granted.

I'm from Chicago. I know as well as anyone else that there are people who should NEVER be police or prosecutors. That's why I go out of my way to avoid doing things which would cause me to interact with them. If through no fault of my own I'm COMPELLED to interact with them, I'm not going to do or say anything which they can use against me, legitimately OR maliciously.
Click to expand...
You obviously desperately want it to be true that prosecutions like the one I described only happen in anti-gun areas. They don't. That's why I've been using the CHL case as an example. It happened in a pro-gun area at a pro-gun time for that area.

You obviously want it to be true that this only happens when the prosecutor is trying to twist the facts or pursue an agenda but that's not always true.
I CAN control whether I do things which obfuscate that psychopathy.
Click to expand...
That doesn't even make sense. How do you "obfuscate psychopathy"?
That's an inherent part of my lifestyle. Some people simply can't comprehend others' desire to live an uncomplicated life, and them going out of their way to do so.
Click to expand...
This isn't about lifestyle or how complicated your life is. I can't tell if you aren't reading what I'm posting or if you can't understand it.

Here's a very simple case

A person attacks you because he mistakenly believes you cut him off in traffic. You are injured and badly shaken in the initial attack and when the attacker continues the assault and you feel you are in danger of being overwhelmed, you draw your gun and shoot the attacker, instantly stopping the attack. Your injuries turn out to be minor and no one witnessed the situation.

You were not the aggressor but your attacker claims you were.
You did not associate with the person before the attack--he claims you attacked him in a road-rage incident and then shot him when he was able to defend himself physically.
You did nothing to provoke the attack--he claims you started it.
You only used deadly force after you felt you had no choice--he says he only wanted to get away but you shot him after he gained the upper hand and tried to escape.

You've literally done everything exactly right but the outcome is that you shot an unarmed man and it's your word against his. The prosecutor believes the situation is ambiguous and attempts a prosecution.
 
“...to cause a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that I was the aggressor.”

That’s the problem. We as a society are lacking in a supply of “reasonable people”. So while a situation may seem reasonable to us, it won’t seem that way to an emotionally driven jury of supposed “peers”.

If one could guarantee a reasonable jury of one’s actual peers, things would be different.
 
Will Munny said:
Yes, but what the judge did not tell you is that you have the right to nullify as you see fit, which is one of the most powerful rights afforded to citizens to check abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I actually found it amusing that some of the questions being asked during jury selection almost seemed to be aimed at weeding out potential jurors that might lean towards jury nullification.

My point above though was simply that I don't think council is allowed to make objections during closing statements (which is why you didn't see it happen even when the prosecutor was making things up during his closing).
 
JohnKSa said:
You obviously desperately want it to be true that prosecutions like the one I described only happen in anti-gun areas. They don't. That's why I've been using the CHL case as an example. It happened in a pro-gun area at a pro-gun time for that area.
Click to expand...
You obviously desperately want to ignore that I conduct myself the same, whether I'm in Chicago or Chardon.

One of my core guiding principles is to have NOTHING to do with law enforcement. I've found the best way to accomplish this is to NOT do things which attracts their attention. Some people seemingly find it impossible to comprehend that you can VASTLY lessen your chance of encounters with the police AND private sector criminals is to simply avoid BOTH, and to avoid behaviors which cause them to take an interest in you.

Is this a 100% guarantee? No. But it seems to work a lot better for me than drug use and sales, drunkeness and drunk driving, fighting, etc., and associating with people who do these things. And I carry a gun and the knowledge of 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments for those cases when my strategy doesn't work.
 
Deanimator said:
I CAN guarantee that I won't have done anything to cause a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that I was the aggressor.
Click to expand...
One more time: one need not be the initial aggressor for a legal defense of self defense to fail to meet the required elements.

Secondly, what you will have done or will not have done may differ materially from what witnesses believe that they saw.

Deanimator said:
As I said, I don't want to interact with most NON-criminals. They don't interest me in ANY way. I'm certainly not going to associate with the kind of people LIKELY to cause me trouble.
Click to expand...
So what?

Deanimator said:
f somebody launches an unprovoked attack on me, it's going to look EXACTLY like that, an UNPROVOKED ATTACK.
Click to expand...
One would hope so, but that well depend upon piecemeal evidence gathered after the fact, which mat be far from complete--and it is something that you cannot control.

And again, that's just one aspect of what is required to prevail in a legal defense of self defense. Can you understand that?
 
Kleanbore said:
Secondly, what you will have done or will not have done may differ materially from what witnesses believe that they saw.
Click to expand...

Imo, this touches on the crux issue of the back and forth.

If a person believes what they saw is materially different than what actually happened, are they being 'reasonable'?


From my perspective, Deanimator is saying 'no reasonable person'.

Mod(s) say 'but it could still happen

Deanimator - 'anybody can twist it'.

Mod(s) - 'but it can still happen

Deanimator - 'I can't stop them but I can control what I do

Mods(s) - 'but can still happen because of lack of witness or witness believes what they saw 'may differ materially' than what actually happened'

Deanimator - 'I can't control a none-witness or an unreasonable person but I can control what I do'.

Mod(s) - 'but it can still happen'

Deanimator 'I can only control what I do to avoid it "Is this a 100% guarantee? No"

Mod(s) - 'but it can still happen'

Deanimator has already acknowledged that it could happen with a qualifier that with reasonable people, it won't.

So I go back to my question,,,,

If a person believes what they saw is materially different than what actually happened, are they being 'reasonable'?
 
danez71 said:
The witnesses you mentioned....?
Click to expand...
They can say what they believe they saw. If they do, they are being reasonable.

To say that it differs from what "actually happened" would require an omniscience that no one has. It may--or may not. That even comes up when there are security cameras.
 
Kleanbore said:
Who is to say "what actually happened"?
Click to expand...
Fortunately, these days it's video.

If video shows somebody charging me with a machete and the prosecutor says it was a bouquet of roses, he's got to produce a bouquet of roses as evidence... rather than the machete with the deceased's fingerprints on it that my defense attorney will produce.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I'm not responsible for dishonesty or mental illness on the part of police and prosecutors. If you don't believe me, ask Mike Nifong.
 
Deanimator said:
Fortunately, these days it's video.
Click to expand...
Which has left too much in the way of uncertainty in actual cases. t
that is not uncommon. We see examples frequently.
Deanimator said:
If video shows somebody charging me with a machete and the prosecutor says it was a bouquet of roses, he's got to produce a bouquet of roses as evidence... rather than the machete with the deceased's fingerprints on it that my defense attorney will
Click to expand...
Extreme case, but it you do wait for the charge of a man who has drawn, that may be your last mistake--research Dennis Tueller.
Deanimator said:
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I'm not responsible for dishonesty or mental illness on the part of police and prosecutors.
Click to expand...
That is irrelevant and off topic.
Deanimator said:
Or they're lying.
Click to expand...
How on earth can anyone who says they believe that they say be lying?
Look: it is common knowledge that witnesses often fail to see anything until the defender has fired his gun, and that they saw nothing of what happened that preceded the sound of the shot. It's not like screen fiction, where the music has alerted the audience that something bad is about to happen, where there is complete and adequate image coverage with sound, and where the action is slow enough that no one can miss anything.
 
Kleanbore said:
They can say what they believe they saw. If they do, they are being reasonable.
Click to expand...

And if science or video says otherwise?

Witnesses can be poor witnesses. It's been talked about here a number of times over the years.

Kleanbore said:
To say that it differs from what "actually happened" would require an omniscience that no one has.
Click to expand...

Is that to imply that because there is no omniscience, there is always reasonable doubt

Science be damned, we need omniscience?


Kleanbore said:
That even comes up when there are security cameras
Click to expand...

It does, true.

So for example, witness says 'I saw person A talking to person B on the side of the road at the scene of an accident & then person A attacked person B out of the blue'.

However, traffic cam &/or other citizens video shows that from the the same angle as witness A, person B clearly pulled a knife and tried to stab person A 1st and it was after that moment of attempted stabbing that person A defended himself.

Is it a reasonable recount of the action by the 1st witness that person A attacked B out of the blue when video and witness #2 from the same angle clearly contradict?
 
Kleanbore said:
witnesses often fail to see anything until the defender has fired his gun
Click to expand...
Stands to reason, as a shot fired would be more distinguishable in a crowded area, busy street, or from distance than say, people arguing. From 50 feet away with background noise witnesses may not hear a physical attack, but the moment a shot is fired all eyes will be in that direction. 10 people could corroborate that they heard a shot and saw a person fall, and none of those 10 would have seen the shooter get attacked 2 seconds previously. Are they all lying? Of course not.
 
After seeing everything that’s happened over the past years with video, it’s very naive to think that video evidence will reliably exonerate someone. It’s happening in this case, with Rittenhouse. There is video, and it’s still being debated.

Even combat gun cam footage, deliberately filmed in order to prevent arm chair quarterbacking of what is considered a “good engagement”, is attacked, scrutinized, parsed and twisted after the fact by the military themselves.

Video is not the end all be all.
 
kwguy said:
After seeing everything that’s happened over the past years with video, it’s very naive to think that video evidence will reliably exonerate someone. It’s happening in this case, with Rittenhouse. There is video, and it’s still being debated.

Even combat gun cam footage, deliberately filmed in order to prevent arm chair quarterbacking of what is considered a “good engagement”, is attacked, scrutinized, parsed and twisted after the fact by the military themselves.

Video is not the end all be all.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point but that's not the point I was getting to.

What the back and forth is really about is 'what is reasonable' and while that is subjective from person to person, there is a line, somewhere, that most will agree is reasonable or not.
 
danez71 said:
I agree to a point but that's not the point I was getting to.

What the back and forth is really about is 'what is reasonable' and while that is subjective from person to person, there is a line, somewhere, that most will agree is reasonable or not.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get that, certainly. I was just generally addressing that blind faith in video isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be. We’ve seen this to be the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Stockpiled weapons mesmerize jurors in Mexican Mafia trial
Replies
10
Views
1K
foghornl
F
B
  • Locked
New trial requested,or let the games begin
Replies
3
Views
954
Fred Thompson
F
P
  • Locked
Beginning of Widespread Acceptance of "Castle Doctrine"?
Replies
5
Views
951
Aguila Blanca
A
D
  • Locked
(MO) DA's Office on Trial
Replies
6
Views
731
YankeeRebel
Y
C
  • Locked
U.k.: "opinion Divided On Trials Without A Jury"
Replies
2
Views
701
pax
P
Back
Top